RoboCop Reboot - Part 6

[Paradox1]

Again, that doesn't answer it. Run it down step by step:

- Autonomous robots are not allowed to operate on US soil

- Sellers says in order to bypass the law he will need to put a man inside a machine, because it would not make him an autonomous robot

- The man inside the machine, RoboCop, works

- Congress votes to renege the law against allowing autonomous robots on US soil because of RoboCop

How does one have anything to do with the other? RoboCop is NOT an autonomous robot. His existence/track record do not reflect anything to do with that law. The movie doesn't address that unless I missed something.

Sellers on the Novak element said that Robocop alone dropped the crime rate by 80% in Detroit. He was using this number to argue the point if one could do that what about a hundred. You really can't expect to be many Alex Murphy's out there who are in incorruptible in their sense of right and wrong. However he's a wildcard for the more corrupt elements of government who rather see machines cause they can be reprogrammed.

 

[DA_Champion]

DA Champion can you answer this please? Is Robocop presented as not in control of himself to the public and government? Or do they go out of there way to make it look like he is a man, in control?

Within the movie, Robocop is "officially claimed" to be under Alex Murphy's absolute control, but large swaths of the public don't actually buy it. He is called a robot by many individuals, which his name, short for "Robot Cop" implies.

It's also made explicitly clear that he is utilising robotic implants, and thus regardless of who controls Robocop, his success demonstrates the benefits of having more robots around.

 

[Poni_Boy]

A drone is a robot with a human in charge of its operation. Which is RoboCop. Which has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act. That's what I'm trying to figure out. I've seen it mentioned on a few reviews but I would think more people caught onto it

 

[Poni_Boy]

Sellers on the Novak element said that Robocop alone dropped the crime rate by 80% in Detroit. He was using this number to argue the point if one could do that what about a hundred. You really can't expect to be many Alex Murphy's out there who are in incorruptible in their sense of right and wrong. However he's a wildcard for the more corrupt elements of government who rather see machines cause they can be reprogrammed.

So then what does repelling the law have to do with it? They are unrelated. RoboCop works because A) he was allowed to operate since he doesn't fall into the illegality of the Dreyfus Act, and B) he is a human in control of a machine. You can't justify autonomous robot effectiveness on US soil based on a product that is not an autonomous robot.

Like you said, they even SAY it in the movie: We need more RoboCops. So... where the hell do autonomous robots fit into that? You build more RoboCops when you can find the proper subjects. That makes sense.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Within the movie, Robocop is "officially claimed" to be under Alex Murphy's absolute control, but large swaths of the public don't actually buy it. He is called a robot by many individuals, which his name, short for "Robot Cop" implies.

It's also made explicitly clear that he is utilising robotic implants, and thus regardless of who controls Robocop, his success demonstrates the benefits of having more robots around.

I know why he is called Robocop. Hasn't changed in 27 years.

Secondly, you just proved Poni's point.

Sellers on the Novak element said that Robocop alone dropped the crime rate by 80% in Detroit. He was using this number to argue the point if one could do that what about a hundred. You really can't expect to be many Alex Murphy's out there who are in incorruptible in their sense of right and wrong. However he's a wildcard for the more corrupt elements of government who rather see machines cause they can be reprogrammed.

Now this seems to make a little more sense. Basically Murphy is a short cut, and his effectiveness allows them to push through some law?

 

[Poni_Boy]

Secondly, you just proved Poni's point.

Hah he keeps proving it over and over and he doesn't see it. Calling a plot hole a plot hole or bad writing bad writing has nothing to do with loving a movie. Guess some people don't follow that

 

[DA_Champion]

Now this seems to make a little more sense. Basically Murphy is a short cut, and his effectiveness allows them to push through some law?

This was stated earlier on the previous page ...

But yes, public opinion changes when they see the effectiveness of Robocop.

 

[DA_Champion]

Hah he keeps proving it over and over and he doesn't see it. Calling a plot hole a plot hole or bad writing bad writing has nothing to do with loving a movie. Guess some people don't follow that

There's no actual plot hole. You have some differences in political worldview with the creative staff that you're applying onto the movie. For example, you're assuming that the law is always black and white when the movie makes clear that they're looking for shortcuts. You're also assuming that the public would react to Robocop in some legalistic manner.

If the law was really black and white, Robocop would have been brought into a government lab where they would have run tests on him to gauge his level of autonomy.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Hah he keeps proving it over and over and he doesn't see it. Calling a plot hole a plot hole or bad writing bad writing has nothing to do with loving a movie. Guess some people don't follow that

I am still trying to figure out why people don't die near the microwave in Batman Begins. Still love it.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Now this seems to make a little more sense. Basically Murphy is a short cut, and his effectiveness allows them to push through some law?

Not really. They don't show any corrupt politicians with ulterior motives. Sellers wants to put his robots on US soil to tap into the "$600 billion" profit share. He makes RoboCop to bypass the law. RoboCop works. They renege the law because of how well he works.

And throughout the movie Sellers has debates with Senators who want to uphold the law. It's repeated over and over why robots should not be allowed on US soil. And it's also stated over and over that RoboCop isn't a robot, he's a man in control of a machine.

 

[DA_Champion]

And it's also stated over and over that RoboCop isn't a robot, he's a man in control of a machine.

It's shown over and over again that a lot of the public doesn't believe this.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Not really. They don't show any corrupt politicians with ulterior motives. Sellers wants to put his robots on US soil to tap into the "$600 billion" profit share. He makes RoboCop to bypass the law. RoboCop works. They renege the law because of how well he works.

And throughout the movie Sellers has debates with Senators who want to uphold the law. It's repeated over and over why robots should not be allowed on US soil. And it's also stated over and over that RoboCop isn't a robot, he's a man in control of a machine.

This just sounds like bad writing to me. If they don't play up the gray area in congress, the rest is assumption.

It's shown over and over again that a lot of the public doesn't believe this.

But that is irrelevant. Because then they wouldn't have let him on the street in the first place if they believed it.

 

[Poni_Boy]

There's no actual plot hole. You have some differences in political worldview with the creative staff that you're applying onto the movie. For example, you're assuming that the law is always black and white when the movie makes clear that they're looking for shortcuts. You're also assuming that the public would react to Robocop in some legalistic manner.

If the law was really black and white, Robocop would have been brought into a government lab where they would have run tests on him to gauge his level of autonomy.

Again, you're missing the point entirely. I'm not applying any of my prior knowledge of the law or military warfare to the context of this movie. I'm using exactly what's presented in the movie to try to make sense of its story. And I can't. Because it's either incomplete or it doesn't follow its own rules.

 

[Poni_Boy]

This just sounds like bad writing to me. If they don't play up the gray area in congress, the rest is assumption.

They don't. They flat out say the public loves RoboCop and wants more RoboCops. Which is great. That's fine. MAKE MORE ROBOCOPS. His existence has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act which ONLY specifies you cannot allow autonomous robots to operate on US soil. And I'm supposed to believe that not ONE Senator makes that connection?

 

[DA_Champion]

They don't. They flat out say the public loves RoboCop and wants more RoboCops. Which is great. That's fine. But it has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act which ONLY specifies you cannot allow autonomous robots to operate on US soil.

1) I'm not sure, but I think they discuss having senators in their pockets when the votes are being counted on the repeal of the Dreyfus Act.

2) This movie satirises US politics very effectively and explicitly, so you cannot assume that 100% of the general public would consider the issue the way Law Professors would. It's quite simple: they see Robocop having successes, and then they want more of those successes immediately.

You're implying that Robocop has nothing to do with autonomous robots, but within the movie itself large swaths of the public perceive him as a robot, and it's clear that he is built off the same technology.

 

[Paradox1]

So then what does repelling the law have to do with it? They are unrelated. RoboCop works because A) he was allowed to operate since he doesn't fall into the illegality of the Dreyfus Act, and B) he is a human in control of a machine. You can't justify autonomous robot effectiveness on US soil based on a product that is not an autonomous robot.

Like you said, they even SAY it in the movie: We need more RoboCops. So... where the hell do autonomous robots fit into that? You build more RoboCops when you can find the proper subjects. That makes sense.

The autonomous robots fit in because people in the government got worried when he began to look past street crime. They mentioned that in the movie when talking about if they have the votes to repeal the law. The robots can be controlled not a man.

 

[Poni_Boy]

It's shown over and over again that a lot of the public doesn't believe this.

What does public perception have to do with changing US law?

 

[DA_Champion]

What does public perception have to do with changing US law?

The law in the movie was changed, at least partly, because of changing public perceptions. They showed pie charts of public opinion changing.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The autonomous robots fit in because people in the government got worried when he began to look past street crime. They mentioned that in the movie when talking about if they have the votes to repeal the law. The robots can be controlled not a man.

Yes, I remember all of that. But again, that implies that RoboCop has legal effect on the Dreyfus Act when he does not because he operates outside of it. So if he works, doesn't work, whatever, it shouldn't affect the law. He has nothing to do with the law.

Now if they say that Sellers bought enough Senators to repel the law, that's a different story. But he specifically states that he doesn't have that many in his pocket.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The law in the movie was changed, at least partly, because of changing public perceptions. They showed pie charts of public opinion changing.

That has nothing to do with your other point. You brought up public perception to state that some people didn't know if he is or isn't a robot.

C'mon man, if you keep jumping from one random thing to another I'm done talking with you. Can't follow a convo if you can't finish a coherent train of thought

 

[jacobed]

I am still trying to figure out why people don't die near the microwave in Batman Begins. Still love it.

If they're able to create a microwave emitter, I'm sure they created a way for it to not affect humans

 

[Paradox1]

Yes, I remember all of that. But again, that implies that RoboCop has legal effect on the Dreyfus Act when he does not because he operates outside of it. So if he works, doesn't work, whatever, it shouldn't affect the law. He has nothing to do with the law.

Now if they say that Sellers bought enough Senators to repel the law, that's a different story. But he specifically states that he doesn't have that many in his pocket.

Before robocop the Dreyfus act was polled at 72% for after the good will Robocop drummed up it was split. They were using him along, they never had any intention on making any more like him. It was a publicity stunt to show how to robots are not bad.

 

[DA_Champion]

That has nothing to do with your other point. You brought up public perception to state that some people didn't know if he is or isn't a robot.

C'mon man, if you keep jumping from one random thing to another I'm done talking with you. Can't follow a convo if you can't finish a coherent train of thought

Your argument against the movie is making all sorts of assumptions that I don't agree. For example, you have written that you believe that the law is always black and white and never open to interpretation, something I disagree with and that most lawyers disagree with, and in this case that the movie disagrees with and doesn't include in its world building.

Robocop is brought into the USA, in the movie, as a a means of circumventing US law. He has a ton of robot technology within him, it's what makes him effective, the public knows it, the politicians know it, but due to loopholes he is allowed onto US soil. You can think of him as a test case and indeed that's how I thought of him in the movie. You can even argue that Robocop is technically illegal on US soil, since his level of autonomy is not at all demonstrated to the authorities, people have doubts about his level of autonomy, and within the movie itself we the audience (who see everything) know that his level of autonomy fluctuates. However, he is let in.

He is then on US soil, once that happens the potential benefits of robot technology are made explicit and more tangible. Crime in Detroit gets reduced by 80%. He chases down a murderer in a public scene. That sways both people and politicians. His autonomy then increases for a bit and he almost kills a police chief. The politicians, who were already growing more supportive of Omnicorp, then want the benefits of robot technology, but without the humanoid brain. The law changes.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Before robocop the Dreyfus act was polled at 72% for after the good will Robocop drummed up it was split. They were using him along, they never had any intention on making any more like him. It was a publicity stunt to show how to robots are not bad.

Yes, I get that. But again what does RoboCop have to do with autonomous robots? Of course the company was never going to make any more of him, but neither the public nor the government knew that. He was the product they were selling to everyone. And he has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act.

 

[DA_Champion]

Yes, I get that. But again what does RoboCop have to do with autonomous robots? Of course the company was never going to make any more of him, but neither the public nor the government knew that. He was the product they were selling to everyone. And he has nothing to do with the Dreyfus Act.

I disagree, I thought both the public and the government understood him as a test case for robot technology.